By
studying the general composition of organisms and comparing them to
past fossils, scientist Charles Darwin conceived the theory of
evolution, which states that organisms naturally develop and adapt. A
major aspect of such adaptation is natural selection, or the genetic
alterations and personal actions which enable the organism to subsist
in the present atmosphere. From natural selection, Darwin then
discerned that there existed only those organisms that evolved enough
and were the most advanced – those who are fit to survive –
and were separate from the obsolete or dying organisms who lack
necessary resources to survive, or those who are unfit to
survive. Hence, these organisms comprise the broad group of the
"fittest" beings, or the "survival of the fittest".

It
is by the Darwinian philosophy of the "survival of the fittest"
that a capitalist is able to denounce the equality of wages in a
socialist/communist society and justify them within the realm of the
capitalist model. It is the wide contention of capitalists that,
because all humans are in fact not equal in capability, the
"subordinates" (or rather, those who are deemed "subordinates")
of the socioeconomic capitalist system are not deserving of the
common luxuries of the bourgeois.

"Survival
of the fittest" is applicable to the capitalist system because such
a system simulates primitive life relations. While this doesn't
reflect man's genetic makeup and the changes made within it, it
does indeed reflect his environment. That is, if man does not exhibit
natural selection, he will be categorized by class as "unfit", or
"subordinate". Like the weaker beings in primitive nature, these
lower-classmen are mere fodder for those who are "fit". The terms
poor ("unfit", "subordinate") and rich ("superior"), are
manifested with the use of a monetary unit which ultimately
substitutes and signifies capitalism from basic survival.

It
is a universal truth that the capabilities of humans differ widely,
some people possessing greater resources in physical or mental powers
than others. With physical and mental independence, man is
autonomous, significant and separate from all other men in these
personal aspects. One cannot accurately categorize other men under a
general pretense due to the fact that each man is in fact independent
(physically and mentally) from all others. Man's interdependence in
society will be discussed further on.

In
the law of primitive human existence, i.e. survival, the personal
physical and mental capacities are the determining factors of life –
those who are not capable of living are subject to death. It is with
the development of humans – the development of conscience,
knowledge, overall mind, etc. – that man is able to and has
effectively eluded such primitive life relations, or the "survival
of the fittest", within his own species.

In
other words, the human race does not intrinsically adhere to
Darwinian laws of nature when he is subject to the capitalist
socioeconomic system. Extrinsically, the human race coincides with
the laws of nature (such as a participant of the food chain, etc.).
Man's irrelevance to the Darwinian philosophy is achieved by the
fact that the current economy nullifies any possibility of the
"survival of the fittest"; the economic powers and capitalist
governments who influence the economy exhibit half-hearted efforts to
quell poverty (the group of the alleged "unfit") with policies
such as welfare and institutions to implement these policies.

In
all truth, the idea of Darwin's law can only apply to the radical
capitalist systems of libertarianism, or laissez-faire capitalism,
where government is limited or nonexistent and everything, or most
things, exist within the private sector. The masses will not usually
allow such drastic capitalism to occur, the proletariat and petty
bourgeois fully knowing or sensing that such a measure would
deteriorate lower-class living and magnify class gaps.

That
being said, this circumstance (the absence of "survival of the
fittest" in common human life) dually affects the independence of
man. As man has placed himself above the "survival of the fittest",
it is thus a fallacy to believe that any participant in the
capitalist system should be at all "subordinate," or actually
worthy of less money (man viewed as a commodity), or possessing less
money. The issue arises when the idea of primitive competition that
capitalists so arrogantly cling to is disproved by human development.
Because of the above mentioned facts, one can conclude that the
economy and society are not "natural," so to speak, due to the
idea of humanity – or, better put, morality – allotted to
the less fortunate throughout the world.

That
is, by the aiding of "subordinates" abroad by capitalist
institutions, those institutions are likewise forfeiting their right
to argue in favor of "survival" and of being "the fittest."
That being, capitalism indeed cannot exist without its often
neglected "subordinates", and also that nurturing others (in this
instance, the lower-class) is merely a hospitable human instinct,
since corrupted by petty ideals of selfishness and a sense of being
higher than any other human. Both of these characteristics are
hallmarks of capitalism.

It
is then easier to distinguish why there are massive class gaps:
specifically here, economic gaps between the bourgeois and the
proletariat and peasantry.

If
class is created due to the concept of man's basic survival, it
must then be inherent of the establishment that claims such standards
are true: capitalism.

This of course
is not meant to imply that human skills naturally differ. It is
instead signifying that some believe that they actually become better
than all other men and are hence entitled to better than average
conditions, as they self-proclaim themselves superior. Such
self-proclamation only has material value and recognition from others
when there is an organization to uphold it. The fact that none can
defy the fundamental truth that on the most basic level, are humans
are equal in that they are of the same species, will be discussed
further on.

The
entire premise of capitalism is supposed to allow the "best man for
the job", a distorted sort of meritocracy where participants are
supposed to excel according to their work input. Capitalism is said
to offer mass opportunity, a devious word that has helped to coin the
phrase "the land of opportunity" as it pertains to America.
Capitalist opportunity is meant to signify the chance to graduate, so
to speak, to higher classes, ultimately that of the bourgeoisie. This
is meant to be done via personal skill and usefulness to a subjugator
(an employer), or the implementation of the free-market (the idea
that labor is sold).

One
must consider, however, how much opportunity is in fact involved in
capitalism.

The
lower-class – by all means the major class in the world – is
already at a disadvantage when considering class; they are the
individuals who compose the lowest economic spectrum. Though it is
the contention of capitalists to argue that the participants of the
lower class are able to advance, or graduate, to a higher class, such
a claim is contradicted by the capitalists themselves, who
systematically undermine the proletariat and peasantry with economic
hegemony.

That
being, once born in the lower-class, one is almost inevitably bound
to it for life, save few exceptions in this pattern. Capitalistic
employers (the bourgeois) implement such laborer sabotage by stealing
a lower-classman's surplus labor (see the Exploitation chapter),
denying him certain rights (e.g. union rights), and essentially
isolating and segregating their employees into the single, low-wage
class.

The
only reason why the lower class accepts the hegemony of the employers
is because of their (the employers') position in capitalism, i.e.
their job of ordering the laborers around is merely that sent into
capitalism's hierarchy of class and consequential positions. In an
area with capitalism, the largest presence of job-opportunity is
allotted to the private sector, in part because of the laborer's
ignorance concerning economic equality, fair wages, public
organizations (unions), etc., and also in part because of
capitalistic regulations on such factors (determined by government or
business).

While
capitalists ignorantly advocate that human will alone can defy
class-economics, they slander de facto circumstance with the
nonexistent ideal of capitalist opportunity. The poor have lesser
education, live in a more hostile environment than their other class
counterparts, have less money, and overall are subject to miniscule
expectations and a decreased willingness to graduate (concerning
class) because of the atmosphere in which they live.

The
lower-class is constantly demonized by business imposition that
advertises itself the most in a consumerist society. Awareness is
decreased as a by-product of capitalist situation, and the
bourgeoisie exploit this pre-determined trend in a systematic action.

Thus,
the lower-class has little opportunity to succeed in capitalism.

The
middle-class, while having more opportunities in education and having
more wealth, indeed are the potentials for the position of the
bourgeois, the ultimate employers, or more likely will become part
the petty-bourgeois, employees that – while higher than the
lower-class – are still subject to the tidings of an employer (i.e.
they receive wages).

The
opportunity of the middle-class is exceedingly elevated compared to
that of the laboring class, as the middle-class have higher
expectations for living, have a better education, have more money,
live in a more stabilized environment, and have a better kindled
initiative. The middle-class is more likely to transcend classes than
the lower-class.

And
at the height of economic class is the bourgeoisie, who – though
they may have graduated from the middle-class – bear their
posterity in an environment completely separated from and
distinguished as higher than the lower-class. The bourgeois are
subject to ridiculous amounts of money, much of which is inherited,
and have the greatest opportunity for education, etc., and are
essentially socially geared toward playing the economic role of the
employer.

One
must ask himself, how can opportunity exist when there is no metric,
no known scale other than the generalized class, to measure it upon?
How can capitalist opportunity indeed exist when considering all of
the economic and social impediments on the lower spectrum of society,
and all of the one-sided advantages of those in the higher classes?

The
fact of the matter is, opportunity does not exist within capitalism,
because in spite of the calumny that capitalist advocates proclaim,
classes downright signify the absence of human skill in society as it
pertains to economic status, i.e., individual skill at any certain
trade is pre-determined by class, which reflects environment. There
is no true opportunity in a society that generalizes skill as well as
systematically and purposely limits skill in order to prolong the
society's existence. Capitalism is instead unfair act of
imposition.

To recount main points:
Fundamental equality among all humans, as well as the pan-human
efforts to aid the socially "unfit" via the economy, has rendered
"survival of the fittest" no more among the developed humans, and
has thus defied any basis for the capitalist idea of superior and
inferior human (as determined by money) as it pertains to the
capitalist system. The fallacy of economically fittest affects the
decayed notion of capitalist opportunity in that it proves classes do
exist according to monetary worth among generalized groups of humans
(such as the lower-class have lower wages). From here we can also
conclude that the "survival of the fittest" definitely doesn't
internally apply to humans because of the lack of a fair scale
to measure skill, when there are so many economic, social, and
political hurdles for the lower-classes to overcome.

The author would like to thank you for your continued support. Your review has been posted.